Union Of India vs Shaik Shareepun
2022 Latest Caselaw 5827 Tel

       HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

                       C.M.A.NO.312 of 2022
JUDGMENT :

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the

appellant, who is respondent in O.A. II(U) No.10 of 2021 on the

file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at

Secunderabad, which herein after will be referred as the 'Tribunal'.

The appellant being aggrieved by the Judgment of the Tribunal in

the above referred original application dated 24-01-2022, where

under the application filed by the respondents No.1 to 5 herein

under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act was allowed

granting a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation for the death of

one Shaik Khaseem Saheb @ Shaik Khasim Saheb, preferred this

appeal on the following grounds :

2. The claim application was filed by respondents No.1

to 5 under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 for

compensation. The respondents have claimed that said Khaseem

Saheb (herein after will be referred as deceased) died in an

untoward incident while traveling from Khammam to Madhira in

Train No.12862 H.Nizamuddin - Visakhapatnam Link Express.

As per the said application, respondents No.1 to 5 have claimed 2 SSRN,J C.M.A. No.312 of 2022

that the deceased, who was a resident of Bheemavaram, went to

the house of his brother-in-law on 12-07-2018 and in the return

journey, he went to Khammam Railway Station in the early hours

of 13-07-2018. The brother-in-law of deceased purchased a

2nd class ticket from Khammam to Madhira and the deceased

boarded the train. Due to heavy rush in the train and in view of

jerks and jolts, the deceased accidentally slipped and fell down

from the running train at KM No.528/2-24 at Madhira railway

station yard, he was dragged by the train to some extent. He

received severe multiple fractures, crush injuries and died on the

spot. The respondents have claimed that the journey ticket of the

deceased was lost in the accident.

3. The appellant herein opposed the claim, filed a written

statement stating that as per the Joint Observation Report, no

journey ticket was found with the deceased. There was no ACP to

the train, there was no untoward incident. Therefore, the

respondents herein are not entitled to any compensation.

4. The Tribunal framed four issues for trial. During

enquiry, two witnesses were examined on behalf of respondents

No.1 to 5. One B.Ravi Kumar, S.I. GRP, Khammam was examined

as CW.1. The respondents/claimants have marked Exs.A1 to A12.

                                      3                               SSRN,J
                                                        C.M.A. No.312 of 2022

The Divisional Railway Manager Report is marked as Ex.R1. The

Case Dairy filed with regard to above referred accident produced

by CW.1 was marked as Ex.C1. The Tribunal having considered

the oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the

respondents/claimants were able to prove their claim, thereby,

directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as

compensation together with interest @ 6% per annum.

5. The appellant has claimed that the Tribunal did not

appreciate the contentions raised by the appellant vide its written

statement in a correct manner. The Tribunal failed to appreciate

the contention of the appellant that the deceased is not a bonafide

passenger since no journey ticket was recovered from him inspite

of the fact that valuables like gold ring, cash of Rs.300/- were

recovered. Therefore, there may not be any chance for ticket only

getting lost in the accident. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the

fact that the appellant herein disputed the presence of AW.2 at the

railway station in as much as the witness in the cross-examination

failed to answer as to at what time he purchased the ticket, at

what time the train arrived, the originating and destination station,

the date and time of the accident etc., There was no alarm chain

pulling to the train, no untoward incident was reported to the 4 SSRN,J C.M.A. No.312 of 2022

Guard of the train. Therefore, simply because a dead body was

found in the yard at Madhira railway station, it cannot be treated

as a death due to untoward incident. The appellant claims that

there was no evidence to believe that the deceased was a bonafide

passenger since no journey ticket was found. There is no evidence

to believe that there is an untoward incident as claimed by the

respondents. Therefore, the Tribunal could not have awarded

compensation against the appellant herein thereby, sought for

setting aside the Judgment of the Tribunal.

6. Heard the learned Standing counsel for the appellant

and learned counsel for the respondents/claimants.

7. Now the following points arose for consideration in the

appeal :

1. Whether the deceased was not a bonafide passenger?

2. Whether there was no such untoward incident as claimed by the respondents/claimants?

3. Whether the findings of the Tribunal about the accident are incorrect thereby, liable to be set aside?

4. Whether the respondents/claimants are entitled to compensation?

POINTS :

8. The learned Standing counsel of the appellant has

submitted that AW.2, who supposed to have purchased ticket for

the deceased could not substantiate the contention of the 5 SSRN,J C.M.A. No.312 of 2022

respondents. As per his cross-examination, he has purchased the

ticket but he does not know the time at which he purchased the

ticket and at what time the train arrived at the station. He was

unable to say the stations in between which the train was

proceeding. The learned counsel also argued that the dead body

of the deceased was found in a vacant place which is not close to

any railway station. Therefore, the possibility of deceased waiting

at the door way for alighting is ruled out. If really, the deceased

fell down from a running train, it is nothing but an indication that

he was standing negligently at the door way and if there is any

death due to such negligence, the same cannot be treated as

untoward incident. While relying on the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex

Court in "Reena Devi V. Union of India"1, the learned counsel

has submitted that the evidence placed before the Tribunal clearly

shows that no journey ticket was found on the person of the

deceased. However, the inquest report and other record indicates

that gold ring, cash in a loose currency notes was found with the

deceased. Therefore, it is a clear indication that the deceased did

not purchase any ticket.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has

submitted that the evidence placed before the Court clearly shows

2018 ACJ 1441 6 SSRN,J C.M.A. No.312 of 2022

that the deceased while traveling in the train accidentally fell down

towards a low lying area abutting the railway track, his body was

rolled to a far of place which is very much evident from the

post-mortem report. The deceased died due to multiple fractures

thereby, there is every chance of ticket being lost when the body

of the deceased was rolled out from a higher place towards a low

lying area. She has also submitted that it is a settled 'Principle of

Law' that in view of a continuous check on the respondents by

concerned train ticket examiners, it shall be believed unless and

until the contrary is proved that every passenger traveling in a

train was holding a valid ticket.

10. As per the record placed before this Court, it is clear

that the deceased fell from a Super Fast train running between

Hazrat Nizamuddin to Visakhpatnam, the chance of deceased

traveling in such a train that too in a second class sleeper is

completely ruled out. The appellant herein could not place any

oral or documentary evidence about the actual accident. No

witness is examined to believe that the deceased was negligently

standing near the door of the compartment. The evidence

adduced by the claimants, photographs marked during the enquiry

and other record clearly indicates that while the train was on 7 SSRN,J C.M.A. No.312 of 2022

transit, the deceased fell from it due to accidental slip. Therefore,

it is an untoward incident. The Tribunal after considering the oral

evidence of the witnesses, came to a conclusion that the deceased

was a bonafide passenger and he died in an untoward incident. As

could be seen from the inquest report, it shows that the dead body

of the deceased was found near Madhira railway station, the

mediators to the inquest noticed multiple injuries. The Tribunal

while scrutinizing the record, considered the entries in the inquest

report clearly shows that the left eye of the deceased was totally

crushed, skull was broken, left hand was cut at the wrist and

broken between the elbow and shoulder. The clothes of the

deceased were badly torn. A gold ring without stone to the left

hand ring finger and cash of Rs.300/- was recovered from the

place of accident. In view of the above stated circumstances, the

possibility of ticket being lost from the body of the deceased

cannot be ruled out.

11. A part from that it is an admitted fact that the

deceased was traveling in a super fast train and fell from a second

sleeper class compartment. According to the evidence placed

before the Tribunal, the deceased was traveling from Khammam,

therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the 8 SSRN,J C.M.A. No.312 of 2022

respondents can be accepted. As per the record, it is very clear

that the dead body of the deceased was not identified soon after

the accident, therefore, the question of claimants influencing

anybody to prepare a false inquest report does not arise. It is only

when the news item about the accident was flashed in the news

papers, the family members of the deceased identified the

deceased as Shaik Khaseem Saheb. The Tribunal gave a reasoned

order while accepting the claim of respondents/claimants,

therefore there is nothing to interfere with the said findings. The

respondents/claimants are able to establish that the deceased

after purchasing the ticket, boarded the train and died due to an

accidental fall from a running train. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly

awarded compensation.

12. Earlier while preferring the appeal, the learned

Standing counsel sought for stay of the further proceedings in

pursuance of the award of the Tribunal and a stay was granted by

imposing a condition for deposit of 50% of award amount.

Accordingly, the appellant herein deposited the said amount. In

view of the representation of the learned Standing counsel that

they have got good chance to win the appeal, the

respondents/claimants were not permitted to withdraw the 9 SSRN,J C.M.A. No.312 of 2022

compensation amount. In view of the findings in the appeal, the

respondents/claimants can be permitted to with draw the

deposited amount. The appellant shall deposit the balance

compensation and earlier stay is vacated.

13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs.

Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed.

                               __________________________
                               JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

Date: 15.11.2022
PLV
 10                 SSRN,J
     C.M.A. No.312 of 2022